Chapter II

Land Tenure Systems in Early Kerala:

Travancore, Cochin and Malabar

Contents

Page No.

Introductory Part

....

....

41-42

The Agrarian Structure in Early Kerala

....

....

42-47

Travancore .... .... 48-51

Tenurial System in Travancore .... .... 51-59

Land Tenure System in the

Erstwhile Cochin

....

....

59-63

Land Tenure System in Malabar

....

....

63-64

Foreign Interlude into Malabar and its Effects

....

....

64-70

Impact of the Land Policies in Malabar

....

....

70-71

An Assessment of the Tenurial System in Early Kerala

....

....

71-74

Notes and References .... .... 75-81

41

Land Tenure Systems in Early Kerala:

Travancore, Cochin and Malabar

The modern State of Kerala which lies in the extreme south-

west of the Indian sub-continent was formed in the year 1956. Prior

to its formation, the region was divided into three territorial segments

namely, the Princely States of Travancore, Cochin and the British

Malabar. These pieces of small states in the Indian sub-continent

were amalgamated into a single state after India‟s Independence.

Accordingly, the Travancore and the Cochin states were integrated to

form the Travancore-Cochin State on 1 July 1949 during its first

phase. The British Malabar which remained under the Madras

Province, during the colonial period was united with Travancore and

Cochin as per the statutory norms of States Reorganization Act of

1956, to form the State of Kerala on 1 November 1956.

Both the former native States of Travancore and Cochin had

similar geographical and social features but these features were

dissimilar with the British Malabar. Even before Indian

Independence, Travancore and Cochin maintained a different polity

and relationship with the British. On the part of Travancore and

Cochin, they made treaties with the English East India Company and

became the subordinate allies of the British and thereby, privileged

to retain their own Rajas and their form of internal government.1

42

Malabar was annexed after the treaty of Seringapatam2 and later

became part of the Madras Presidency.

The process of social transformation in early Kerala was almost

similar to other parts of South India. But the antecedents of agrarian

expansion in the erstwhile State of Kerala were remarkably different

from the nearby regions of South India.3 The agrarian expansion in

the region had far reaching effects on the land-based social order.

The expansion in the agrarian sector necessitated the introduction of

land reforms in the region. The variations in the relationship

between the landlords and tenants in Travancore, Cochin and

Malabar also necessitated the implementation of land reforms from

the nineteenth century.

The Agrarian Structure in Early Kerala

The agrarian sector in Kerala had undergone rapid and uneven

changes from time to time. In the early society of Kerala, there was

no competition for the ownership of land. The private ownership of

land began in Kerala long before the Sangam Age. The Sangam

works allude to the existence of private property, but not to anything

like the complex jenmie system or landlordism that evolved itself in

the later years.4 The land was owned by those who tilled the soil and

nobody restricted the ryots 5 from cultivating the land they held.

When there was excess production, it was exchanged to others. The

population during that time was small and the cultivable land was

proportionately large and food grains were initially produced on

43

subsistence basis but when they produced it in excess, the surplus

grains were given to those who were not engaged in agriculture.6

In the field of land relations, the extension of the Brahmin

influence into the region paved for a new form of feudal landlord-

peasant relationship. The advent of the Brahmins led to the

construction of a large number of temples in Kerala. The early

Brahmin settlements in Kerala were centred round such temples.

The chief resources of the temples were the endowments given by the

kings and the landed aristocracy. The extensive gift of land to the

temples led to the development of an agrarian economy centred

round the temples. The Brahmin settlements were growing in Kerala

through the seven and eight centuries. Temple centred Brahmin

settlements had become well established by the ninth century with

extensive control over the fertile tracts of Kerala.7 Soon the

Brahmins emerged to the position of exploitative leadership as they

had the knowledge, institutional devices, ideology, historically

contingent cultural powers of social control and magico-religious

charisma.8 The Brahmins came to acquire the status of wealthy and

powerful landlords or jenmies. It was the domains of the Brahmins

that formed the jenmom property9 and the owners were called

jenmies.10 This ascendancy of the Brahmins led to the feudalistic

agrarian relations in Travancore.11

44

The Brahmins were placed at the highest position in the caste

hierarchy. The new Brahmin households of the period represented a

new mode of agrarian organization. It was fundamentally different

from the old holdings, which were kinship based. The new

immigrants were not cultivators but the land held by them was

cultivated by others and this led to the formation of two mutually

antagonistic classes; the landed gentry and the landless farmers in

the agrarian order, led by the Brahmins. With the agrarian

expansion under the Brahmins, the period also witnessed the

proliferation of new temples. There was no other class around the

temple and the temple was synonymous with a Brahmin settlement.

Every temple had huge wealth in land form. Because of their

settlements around the temples, the Brahmins became the dominant

elements in the society, hence all social groups came to look upon

them as direct source of strength and sustenance. Soon the temples

became the largest of the landed magnates of the time.

There was a change in the position of the cultivators with

regard to their right on the land, with the coming of the Brahmins.

The Brahmin jenmies controlled the ownership rights on the land.

The cultivators had no option but to accept this ownership rights of

the jenmies over land.12 The Brahmins were able to acquire land to

the temples and later for themselves. In course of time, the

Brahmins emerged as the largest section of land owners in the

region.

45

The colonization of the Brahmins in Kerala as well as their

hold on temples led to a new order in the society. The native people

were ready to accept the Nambudiri Brahmins13 as their landlords

and held land from them as tenants. These tenants paid the

landlord some fee called kanam as a token of their allegiance. But

with the advent of the Perumals they began to levy a simple tax on

lands for meeting the expenses. This was the origin of rajabhogam 14

or royalty or rent which became common during the later period.

The advent of the Perumals saw an era which witnessed the control

of more land under them as abandoned lands and the escheat

properties as well as those captured through the various wars they

fought. The Nambudiri chieftains also made land grants to the

Perumals. Thus the area of land under the rulers increased from day

by day and formed the nucleus of the sircar lands. Towards the close

of the Perumal period the country was parcelled out among the

several chieftains who became independent rulers of their respective

areas. This state of affairs continued till the period of Marthanda

Varma who conquered and consolidated several petty chieftains and

ruled as the supreme lord of Travancore.15 These conquests however

did not affect the rights of the Brahmin landlords. Thus, there

emerged the two types of lands in Travancore namely, sircar and

jenmom lands.

While the sircar lands belonged to the state, the jenmom lands

denotes technically to the hereditary right to free hold lands subject

46

to no state tax at all. The jenmom lands are supposed to retain their

normal condition as long as they remained under the possession of

the jenmies. The character of that jenmom tenure ceased to exist at

the moment when the land was transacted for money consideration.

In that case, the land was liable to a light tax called rajabhogam in

the case of garden lands and kanapattam16 in the case of paddy

lands. Once this light tax is imposed on a land, it continues forever,

even though the land was reclaimed by the jenmie at a later stage.

The jenmom land was regarded as the private property of the owner.

The jenmies leased their lands from a simple lease (verumpattom) to

outright sale (attiper). The most important of such tenures was the

kanappattam tenure. Kanappattam is a combination of a lease and

mortgage lease which enables the jenmie (landlord) to rent or

mortgage the land. Whether the kanappattam tenure in Travancore

was a lease or a mortgage or a combination of the two, the law has

declared that it was not redeemable, resumable or determinable

except in exceptional circumstances. In this respect it differs from

tenures of the same kind in Malabar and Cochin. It is periodically

renewable on payment of a certain percentage of the mortgage

amount.17

The early stage of the agrarian expansion in the region was

completed by the eleventh century A.D under the Brahmins and the

expansion was centred on the temples. This expansion led to the

creation of a strong hierarchical group which was both social and

47

economical. The Brahmins became the proprietors of the „ur‟ or the

village and they were called the urallor (temple trustees) and they

owned their individual holdings and also the temple holdings, such

as the Brahmaswom and Dewaswom 18 respectively.

The power and authority of the urallors gradually increased

when vast areas of fertile lands came under them. Various tenure

rights came to be created to suit their interests. By the twelfth

century A.D. the Nambudiri Jenmies had become a powerful

community in Kerala. With this new development, the mode of

customs and conventions which once regulated landlord-tenant

relations weakened. There was a gradual process of conversion of

temple lands into Brahmin lands. Since the Brahmins were the

priests, advisers, law makers and tutors of the Kings, the rulers

unquestionably favoured the trend. The kudiyans (tenants) who

accepted the land from the Brahmins had to pay rent to the

Brahmins. Some times the kudiyans on the Brahmaswom and

Dewaswom lands were subjected to rack renting (the excessive

raising of rent without any basis) eviction and other kinds of

oppression. This pattern of land ownership prevailed in almost all

parts of early Kerala, i.e., erstwhile Travancore, Cochin and Malabar.

A study and analysis of this system that existed in all the three

territorial segments of early Kerala would give a proper picture of the

Jenmie-kudiyan relationship and the twist and turns in their

relationship.

48

Travancore

The erstwhile Princely State of Travancore lies in the

southernmost region protected by natural boundaries. The southern

and western sides are bounded by the Indian Ocean and the Arabian

Sea respectively, the east, by the ranges of the high ghats, and the

northern parts being mostly covered with back-waters, rivers, and

lagoons. Thus, the position of Travancore, being unfavourable for

the march of horses and elephants that formed the important part of

the army in those days, saved it from the hands of the foreign

invaders. 19 Travancore was perhaps the only kingdom in India

which preserved its original caste, religion, customs, manners, and

institutions. Travancore was pre-eminently an agricultural country

with majority of the population depending on the land for their

livelihood. A peculiar feature of the agrarian setup of Travancore

was that the proprietors and tenants of the land lived and slept on

the same tract of land.20

Geographically, Travancore consisted of a long and narrow

strip of land - one hundred and seventy four miles in length - with a

medium breadth inland of about forty miles. This land, it was a

belief that, it was reclaimed from the sea. It stretches from south to

north and is locked in by the Arabian Sea and a high mountain wall,

the Western Ghats. Although this tract of land was small in size it

was famous for its vast stretches of paddy fields, rich forests

and mineral sands. Geographically Travancore maintained

49

distinctiveness on its history and culture. There are mountain

heights walling the state on the eastern boundary of the country

undulate to the west over the hills of dense vegetation till it reaches

the cultivated plains which skirt the back-waters and the Arabian

Sea. The numerous streams and rivers flowing through the region

made the land fertile.

Travancore was opened to contacts by sea with aliens such as

Phoenicians, Arabs, Chinese and Europeans. As a result, most of

the important towns emerged on the coast at the mouth of navigable

rivers. The fertile area of land near the coastal region formed the

village settlements. The fertile soil along with the abundant rainfall

was favourable for the cultivation of rice, spices, coconut, palms and

other crops. The various crops of the region especially, spices

attracted the traders from outside to the region. The commercial

contact with far away nations had its influence on the political and

social life of the people also. The trade connections resulted in the

entry of Christianity and Islam to the region. Christianity had firm

footing in the region from the beginning of the first century A.D. and

Islam established here long before the first Muslim Empire had been

founded in North India. Hinduism, unmistakably was the dominant

religion in the area. The native Kings who were mainly following the

Hindu religion welcomed the traders who came with different

religious background and made several land grants and conferred

trading rights on them which facilitated a brisk trade.

51

The State of Travancore had its origin in the ninth century A.D

from the petty kingdom Venad, lying to the south of modern Kollam

and stretching to Kanyakumari. The rulers of this kingdom from

whom the ruling family of the later Travancore descended claimed

their descent from the ancient Chera kings. The society was of

feudal nature, organized for war and administration. In theory the

king was all powerful but in practice he was kept in check by his

feudal nobles on the one hand and by the people or the subjects on

the other. The ruler followed a practice that the people could

approach the king directly with their demands and grievances.21

Tenurial System in Travancore

A better understanding of the land tenure system in

Travancore needs careful investigation in its origin as well as

development. The land tenure system of Travancore was similar in

some respects to those in the adjoining areas of Madurai and

Thirunelveli on the east-coast, as well as to those of the neighbouring

states of Cochin and the British Malabar, on the north. The nature

of land holdings in Malabar, Cochin and Travancore must have had

common origin and development in ancient times before Kerala was

divided into separate kingdoms ruled by independent rulers.22

The rulers of Travancore influenced the tenurial system that

developed in the region. Many of the early rulers tried to have an

effective administrative set up in the region. Among the earlier

powerful rulers of Travancore, the name of Marthanda Varma is

52

more important, who is known as the „founder of modern

Travancore.‟ Marthanda Varma (1729-1758) came to power when

the state was facing adverse circumstances. The financial position of

the state was very weak due to the long standing refractory conduct

of the feudatory chiefs. There was no proper administrative

machinery for the transaction of government business. The general

condition was that the authority of the king or ruler was no where

respected. The pillamar and the madampimar 23 exercised undue

authority over the land and thereby they had established themselves

as powerful forces in the public life of the state. The feudal elements

enjoying the patronage of the priestly class had the upper hand in

the affairs of the state.24 Marthanda Varma boldly faced the

situation with valour and sagacity with laudable firmness. He wanted

to suppress the feudal polity which was controlled by the Nair

chieftains. Through his policies of good governance, he could revive

the tradition of the ancient mother kingdom of the Cheras.

Marthanda Varma was a remarkable administrator, well-

known for his shrewd political moves and his stern measures for

consolidating his authority. His act of dedication of the state to the

deity of the great temple in Thiruvananthapuram, Sree Padmanabha

in 1750 was popularly known as Thrippadidanam. This dedication is

viewed as a method used by which the ruler declared to be only a

trustee of the lands of Sree Padmanabha, the deity. He surrendered

his sword to the deity and received it back from Him in trust. He

53

also transferred all his lands to the deity and declared that the State

is not the possession of the ruler, but the ruler is heading it as a

regent of Sree Padmanabha and used the title Sree Padmanabha

Dasa. This event was one of supreme significance. It meant the

collection of revenue from the land in the name of God and the

expenditure of the same in the interests of the people. This measure

of Marthanda Varma helped him to have complete control over the

territory of Travancore and to start his policy of administrative

reforms including land relations. This is viewed as a clear expression

of the theocratic rule in Travancore. By a series of administrative

measures Marthanda Varma gave undue privilege to the Brahmins in

the State.25 These measures of the ruler made the position of the

Brahmins in the society more powerful.26 The later rulers of

Travancore also followed this practice of using a title along with their

name. This dedication of the state to the deity and administering the

state on behalf of the deity helped the ruler to be free from the

threats of disturbances from the worshipers of Sree Padmanabha.

This sort of acquiring the status of „servant of the deity‟ made his

word quite infallible and that major changes in land tenure relations

were accomplished by the ruler.

A significant change introduced by Marthanda Varma after

assuming office was that he reorganized the land revenue

administration. The land tax which was not being collected for a

long time was re-imposed in 1739. He gave importance to the land

54

revenue administration and for the proper collection of land tax

surveys of the cultivated land was made and direct relations were

established with the cultivators.27 The survey that took place helped

the state to have a clear picture of the land and its area under

cultivation. Marthanda Varma adopted various measures for

improving agriculture by introducing a series of new agrarian

practices. Great irrigation works, roads and canals of communication

were undertaken and carried out.28 This type of modernization

activities were absent in other parts of Kerala during the period

under reference.29 Along with this, Marthanda Varma tried to control

the authority of the powerful chieftains in the region, the pillamar

and madampimar. The land revenue reforms of Marthanda Varma

were a base for the later tenurial changes in the state.

The immediate successors of Marthanda Varma were not fully

successful in continuing the momentum initiated by the ruler.

Instead, rulers like Karthika Tirunal Rama Varma (1758-1798)

entered into alliance with the English East India Company. The

weakness of the rulers always affected the smooth functioning of the

administration as well as the formation of ministries in the state.

The later ruler, Balarama Varma (1798-1810) depended mainly on

his ministers and Dewan for administration. The shifting of capital

as well as imposing more revenue collection from the people made

the ministers hostile to the people. The resentment of the people

towards this additional revenue collection had its expression from

55

people like Veluthampi, who was the karyakkar of Thalakkulam.30

Finally the situation reached the stage of the suspension of the

Dewan and Veluthampi, who took the lead in the opposition, was

appointed as the new Dewan in 1801.

During the period of the Dewanship of Veluthampi, there was a

revolt in the barracks and this forced Travancore to conclude a treaty

with the English East India Company and to become a subsidiary

ally.31 As per the treaty, Travancore had to pay a tribute of

Rs. 80,000/- annually to the Company. It is evident that this

amount has to be raised from the land. The increased influence of

the British in Travancore naturally paved the way for administrative

changes including changes in the land relations. In spite of the poor

economic position, Travancore paid the amount promptly but later

the so called interference of the Company in the internal affairs of

the state irritated the Dewan Veluthampi. Veluthampi went to the

extent of issuing a Proclamation urging the people to rally against

the British through his Kundara Proclamation.32 The British

crushed the uprising that eventually led to the suicide of Veluthampi

in 1809. With the death of Veluthampi, Travancore practically lost

its independent status. From this period onwards the British began

to concentrate more in the administration of Travancore.

Rani Gauri Lakshmi Bhai, the successor to Balarama Varma,

made an agreement with the English East India Company by which

Colonel Munroe was appointed as the British Resident in India.

56

Shortly Colonel Munroe was appointed as the Dewan also. He

reorganized the administration in the state and followed a centralized

administrative system which was in practice in the Madras

Presidency.33 The establishment of courts for the first time in

Travancore was in 1811 by Colonel Munroe and it marks a distinct

epoch in the history of legislation in the state.34 The reforms of

Colonel Munroe influenced the later political life including land

relations of Travancore. The Regency of Gaury Parvathy Bhai (1815

– 1829) and the period of the later ruler Rama Varma Swathi Tirunal

brought about major changes in the administrative fields. During

the period of the later rulers Ayilliam Tirunal (1860 -1880) and

Visakam Tirunal (1880 – 1885) significant changes took place in the

land tenure systems in Travancore. Encouragement was also given

for the growth of education in the state by introducing the English

system of education and thereby introducing new parameters in

Travancore culture. More privileges were given to the cultivators

also. The period of Sree Moolam Tirunal (1885-1924) saw the

emergence of political consciousness in the region. The inauguration

of the Legislative Council, Sree Moolam Popular Assembly in 1904,

which worked as a platform for administrative changes in the state,

is an evidence for this. Later the Regency of Maharani Sethu

Lakshmi Bhai (for Chithira Tirunal 1924 – 31) as well as the period

of Sree Chithira Tirunal Bala Rama Varma I (1931–1948) also

57

witnessed a period of progressive, constitutional, administrative and

social reforms in Travancore.

The political considerations in Travancore operated in a

different direction as far as land relations were concerned. The

rulers of Travancore tried to curtail the powers of the chieftains who

were controlling the land for several decades in the region. As a

result of this, a large part of the cultivated land came under direct

state ownership. By the end of the first decade of the nineteenth

century, the state owned lands accounted for about one half of the

cultivated land in Travancore and their share rose to eighty per cent

by the middle of the century as a result of the variety of policies

followed during the intervening period.35 The remaining twenty per

cent of the cultivated land was owned by few jenmies, enjoying them

either as free hold or under a light assessment called rajabhogam.

These jenmies were mainly Brahmins, Brahmin temples and

madampis who were the descendants of some of the old chieftains.36

The total population of Travancore in 1854 was estimated at

1.26 million and majority was depending on land for their

livelihood.37 As per the census of 1901, nearly two thirds of the

entire population (i.e., about 0.8 million) depended on land.38 The

tenants formed the bulk of the agricultural population of Travancore

towards the middle of the nineteenth century. The rights of the

tenants who were cultivating the sircar and other lands had different

tenurial patterns. The sircar lands were known as pandaravaka

58

lands with sub divisions pandaravaka pattom and pandaravaka otti.

Those who were having the pandaravaka otti lands had more rights

than the pandaravaka pattom land holders. Half of the cultivated

land in the state belonged to the pandaravaka pattom category and

the holders of these lands had no ownership rights or they did not

have the freedom to transfer the occupancy rights. The state was

considered as the jenmie and the tenants of the pandaravaka pattom

lands were to pay tax or rent to the state.

The lands other than pandaravaka were popularly called

jenmom lands. The condition of the holders of jenmom lands were in

no way better than those of the holders of the pandaravaka lands.

The jenmies of the jenmom lands harassed the tenants in many

ways.39 There was always the threat of eviction. The state was quite

alert to the interest of the cultivators and even as early as 1829, a

royal edict was promulgated directing that “in all suits of this nature

(for eviction) decided, filed or which may hereafter be preferred, the

courts maintain the established usage in the country, viz., that the

tenant should pay the jenmie his usual, ordinary and extra ordinary

dues and that the jenmie receive the same and let the tenants remain

in possession and enjoyment of the property.” 40 This edict was a

major step on the part of the ruler to protect the rights of the tenant

who cultivated the land. This edict was also an earlier step towards

the concept of social welfare of the State. The tenants mainly

consisted of lower castes and the regulation to protect their rights

59

over the land was a moral boost for them. Though the regulation of

1829 did not solve the problems faced by the tenants, it was an

attempt on the part of the rulers to encourage them in cultivating the

land. The agrarian situation in Travancore was far better than the

other neighbouring states and it was further improved by the later

progressive measures followed this regulation. The opportunities

offered by these favourable circumstances were utilized by

enterprising groups, who were earlier in unprivileged positions on

account of their inferior caste status to rise in the socio-economic

ladder.41 As cited earlier, there were common features as well as

glaring differences regarding the land tenure systems in all the

erstwhile territorial segments of Kerala. Therefore, it is worth

mentioning the nature and conditions of land tenure systems in both

Cochin and Malabar vis-à-vis those of Travancore.

Land Tenure System in the Erstwhile Cochin

Cochin, the other Princely State was the smallest political unit

in the region of Kerala. Cochin was a powerful kingdom in the years

immediately following the disintegration of the Kulasekhara Empire.

Later its power gradually weakened due to dissensions in the royal

family. Rama Varma, popularly known as Sakthan Thampuran

(1790 – 1805) was one of the prominent rulers of the region, who laid

the foundation for a centralized administrative system. There were

attempts by the state to subdue the chiefs and strengthen the State

power, but not the same extent as in Travancore. One third of the

60

cultivated land was with the state, but a considerable portion of that

was probably the private property of the Raja himself. In 1812,

Colonel Munroe who was also the British Resident for Cochin State

had initiated steps to establish control over the temple lands and

other properties of about 179 temples in the state42 during the

process of consolidating his authority.

With the coming of the British to Cochin, they embarked on

new methods of administrative system. The reform introduced by

Colonel Munroe in Cochin bears a close resemblance to those which

he introduced in Travancore. The foreigners who came to Cochin

before the British, both the Dutch and the Portuguese were

interested in improving the trade relations with Cochin. But the

British who came later wanted to have a permanent occupancy in the

region and their administrative measures were aimed at it.

As a result, forty per cent of the cultivated land and the whole

of waste lands came under the direct control of the State in Cochin.

This was termed as pandaravaka 43 or sircar and the remaining sixty

per cent was under the control of private ownership. This was

referred to as puravaka 44 or jenmom lands. These lands were under

private ownership and supposed to pay a fraction of rent collected

from the peasants to the government, termed as rajabhogam. So

long as the rajabhogam was given to the government, the state did

not interfere in the affairs of the jenmom lands. The jenmom lands in

the region were owned by the temples, Nambudiries, local chieftains

61

and a few families who were connected with the royal palace. The

conditions of the actual cultivators in the land were deplorable as the

jenmies were having unrestricted powers and the government

followed a policy of non-intervention in the jenmies-tenant relations.

The tenants had no recognized rights on the lands. In the sircar

lands, the majority of the holders were pattom cultivators as in

Travancore and they had neither ownership rights in the land they

held nor rights of transfer.

The land area of Cochin was about one fifth of Travancore.

The British demanded almost fifty percent of the state revenue for

them. This revenue for Cochin was comparatively higher than the

assessment in the British Malabar. The main division of tenants in

Cochin was into pandaravaka tenants and puravaka tenants. The

most privileged were the pandaravaka kanam tenants. There were

also pandaravaka pattom tenants who were more in number than

the pandaravaka kanam tenants. The pandaravaka pattom tenants

were to pay more revenue to the government than the other category.

They were better off in spite of high rent charged from them

comparing with the puravaka or jenmom tenants. The puravaka

tenants were to depend upon the mercy of the jenmies. The

condition of tenants who were also the agricultural labourers,

belonging to the lower castes were worse than that in Travancore.

Although slavery was abolished in Cochin in 1854, slaves continued

to be attached to their masters with semi-slave status.45

62

Among the population of Cochin during 1857, half were

engaged in agricultural activities. The number of land owners could

have been only a few thousands and they included jenmies and

holders of sircar, kanam and cognate tenures. The rest of the

agricultural population consists of tenants and agricultural

labourers. The state followed a policy of non-intervention in the

affairs of jenmies and tenants, and as a result the cultivators were in

a deplorable position. Because of the British demand for a huge

sum, there was high rate of land tax on the cultivators. Thus, even

by the end of the nineteenth century, there were no significant

improvements in the position of the tenants holding either

pandaravaka or private jenmom lands in Cochin.

The tenancy legislation that came up in Travancore had its

influence in the Cochin State also. A major breakthrough in the land

tenure relations in Cochin was initiated with the royal edict issued

by the Raja in 1863. The purpose of this edict was to prevent

eviction of kanam tenants before the completion of the term, of twelve

years.46 The twelve years rule with regard to land tenure is said to

have been fashioned upon the periodic celebration of Mamamkam 47

which was held once in twelve years. This was a system followed in

early Kerala. All tenures of land subsisted only for that period; all

transactions, appointments, contracts, and tenures had to be

renewed at the end of twelve years.48 But the royal edict was not

strictly implemented. In the absence of any machinery for

63

implementation, this edict had very little effect, although the tenants

clamoured for more reforms in the state.

Land Tenure System in Malabar.

As in the case of all the modern society, in Malabar also, land

was valued above all other forms of wealth and control of the land

became the basis of the socio-political set up. Before the British

occupation of Malabar, the land comprised of numerous petty

principalities. While tracing the history of Malabar, William Logan,

suggested that earlier Malabar was under the mighty rule of

Cheraman Perumal and after him the kingdom was divided among

his kinsfolk. Logan further observed that between the ninth century

and the arrival of the Portuguese in the late fifteenth Century A.D.

the chieftains of the nadus reigned almost unchanged in the limits of

their territory. Even during the advent of the Portuguese, as well as

the period of the invasion of the Mysore rulers, the constitution of

the Malabar society remained unchanged.49

One important aspect regarding the nature of land relations in

Malabar was that the ownership right of the jenmies and landlords

was quite different from that in other parts of the country. The land

tenure system of Malabar has been far more complex than that of the

other neighbouring states, Travancore and Cochin. Malabar had the

highest percentage of tenancy, the most complex land system and

the worst form of landlordism.50 The land tenure system here has

been more feudalistic. The jenmies in Malabar possessed absolute

64

property rights on the soil.51 The tenurial system became more

complex as large number of intermediaries existed in between the

jenmie and the actual cultivator. The state never owned or claimed

ownership of any land in Malabar except what it had acquired by

escheat, purchase or land acquisition.52

Foreign Interlude into Malabar and its Effects.

The Mysorian invasion of Kerala under Hyder Ali and Tippu

Sultan during the second half of the eighteenth century decisively

influenced the course of the later day events of the region.53 It

brought about significant changes in the political, social and

economic life of the people. Hyder Ali started the invasion of Malabar

in 1766 and after him his son Tippu Sultan followed suit. The

Mysorian attempt ended up in 1792 with the treaty of Seringapatam

(the pact made between the British and the Sultan of Mysore) by

which Tippu Sultan formally seceded Malabar to the British.54 The

conquest of Malabar by the Sultans of Mysore had its impact on the

land relations also. The Mysorian Sultans of Malabar wanted to

extract as much revenue as possible from land and for this purpose

they introduced for the first time in the Malabar region, a

comprehensive land revenue assessment.55 The policy followed by

the Mysorian rulers on land was also responsible for added

cultivation of more areas. The English East India Company annexed

Malabar in 1792 and it was made part of the Bombay Presidency.56

66

During the time of the annexation of Malabar by the English

East India Company, the state had the land tenure system initiated

by the Sultans of Mysore. The Sultans of Mysore followed a policy of

maximizing the revenue collection from the state. The cultivators

were forced to pay more amount as tax which they could not afford.

No proper assessment or land regulation was made for the purpose

of land revenue collection in the state.57 The British policy was to

encourage the peasants to maximize the production from the land in

order to collect more revenue from them. The British authorities also

wanted to reduce the personal influence of the ruling class and

transform them to be the supporters of the British rule.58 For this

purpose they recognized the rights of tenants on land. After the

annexation of Malabar, the British started leasing lands to the Rajas

of numerous principalities, who had rendered their support to the

British against the Mysore Sultan.

The tenurial system of the British in Malabar was mainly

based on certain factors like maximization of production as well as

recognizing the right of land holders, who would act as supporters of

the British rule in the region. This is evident from the minutes

which were sent to the Court of Directors of the English East India

Company by Sir Thomas Munroe.59 It is a clear evidence of the

purpose of land policy of the British in Malabar. There were various

tenures on the jenmom lands of Malabar. Some of the tenures of this

region had no similarities with other parts in Travancore or Cochin.

67

As cited earlier, the land tenure systems of Malabar were far

more complex than those of Travancore and Cochin. There has been

more feudalistic nature than the other regions. Malabar was also

marked by the existence of intermediaries between the owner of the

land and the actual cultivator. There were many sub-tenants in

between the actual jenmie and the actual tenant. There existed the

kanam-kuzhikkanam 60 tenures also. Under this category the

landlord collected money from the tenant. The tenant or kudiyan

was given the right of occupation as well as improvement of the land.

There was also the verumpattam tenure which was generally for one

year and can be for several years if it was the customary

verumpattam. Another type of mortgage with full possession existed

which was called otti.61 There existed karazhma tenures which were

generally granted for services rendered in temple. There was also a

tenure called jenmom kozhu, which had a fixed rent. The jenmies in

Malabar have been the absolute owners of the land with absolute

proprietary rights on the soil.

The occupation of Malabar by the Mysore rulers in the late

eighteenth century embittered the relations between the mopalahs 62

and the caste Hindus. Many mopalahs succeeded in shifting to their

jenmies the entire burden of the land revenue assessment which was

newly introduced. Changes in the land relations took place as a

result of the fleeing of Nairs and Nambudiries from Malabar to escape

religious persecution and forced conversion. This situation however

68

lasted only for a few years when Malabar came under the British

towards the close of the eighteenth century; the jenmies rushed back

and retained their lost lands. The Mysore rule created euphoria

among the mopalahs and the new sense of freedom which they tasted

lingered on and lent them the will to fight the system which they had

until then passively accepted. While the Portuguese intrusion to

Malabar produced a militant tradition among the mopalahs, the

invasion of the Mysore rulers prepared the ground for an outlet to

this tradition through the expression of agrarian discontent.

The British policy of land relations in Malabar offered the

jenmie the right of eviction of the peasants at will and leave the

peasant helpless. As early as the 1830‟s there was discontentment

among the cultivating mopalahs who were the most severely hit

sections of the community due to the change in land relations.

Among the population of Malabar during 1861, about two thirds

were directly dependent on the land.63 All the jenmies who were an

insignificant minority in the agricultural population enjoyed

practically every right on the land. Other than the jenmies, the

remaining agricultural population in Malabar was divided almost

equally into tenants and agricultural labourers. Among the tenants

there was a large section known as the customary tenants. The

customary tenants enjoyed fixity of tenure, and paid only very

nominal fees. Some times they paid nothing. The chief group among

the tenants was known as kanamdar. The kanamdars were

69

considered to hold land on certain rights partaking the character of

mortgage and lease, though as a matter of fact kanam originated as a

feudal tenure with rights of perpetual occupancy.

The position of the tenants in Malabar was virtually tenants-

at-will in law as well as in practice. This system continued for some

time, but by 1856 the British civil court redefined the tenancies of

the region and graded them in different divisions. The landlords

were given right to extract rent as much as they wanted from the

tenants at will. If the tenants were not able to pay the demanded

sum, the landlord was given the authority to oust them. In case of

tenants of garden land nominal compensation was given for the

improvement they made on the land and for tenants of wet land no

compensation was given. Further more, the land revenue

assessment was also high during the period. The major burden of

this high land revenue fell upon the actual cultivators. The amount

collected as land revenue was about eighty six percent of the pattom

(rent) for wet land, sixty three percent of the pattom for garden land

and thirty seven percent of the gross produce in the case of dry

lands.64 It was also said that the actual assessment rates even

exceeded these rates. During this time the price of agricultural

commodities increased and the rate of land revenue was not high

compared with the income. The land revenue collected from the

Malabar district was about one seventh of the gross produce.65 But

this hike in the price of commodities never benefited the cultivators,

70

on the other hand, jenmies demanded more rent from the actual

cultivators.

The changes in the tenancy system in Travancore and Cochin

had their influence on the tenants of Malabar regions also. Other

than this, there was an increased pressure of population on land

which ultimately led to the competition for land. The result was that

these factors led to the emergence of social tensions and clashes

between the owners of land and the actual cultivators, for example,

the mopalah riots in Malabar which culminated into the Mopalah

Rebellion in the twentieth century. Crisis did not arise all on a

sudden, but a long series of protests started in various parts of the

region. It will not be out of place here to make a reference to the

unrest in Travancore among the ryots in 1860‟s, which paved the

way for the Royal Proclamations.

Impact of the Land Policies in Malabar

The Hindu tenants were passive in their sufferings from the

landlords because of their submission to and respect for traditional

authority. But the Muslims (mopalahs) who had inherited a militant

tradition and in whom the Mysore rule had instilled a new sense of

freedom and hope could not tolerate the sufferings.66 This resulted

in a series of protests led by them which started as early as 1836

and lasted nearly a century. These tensions, fanned by communal

feeling, turned into what is called the Mopalah Rebellion in the later

years.67 On the basis of these disturbances the British authorities

71

appointed Mr. T.L. Strange, a judge of Madras, as a Special

Commissioner to enquire in to the causes of the mopalah outrages

and to suggest remedial measures. But Strange‟s recommendations

and the later actions related to land tenures were all in favour of the

landlords.68 So this only resulted in the further deterioration of the

situation of the region

Owing to the continued disturbances in the region the

government appointed Sir William Logan as Commissioner in 1881 to

enquire into the land tenure systems and tenants‟ rights. Logan

studied the situation in detail and prepared a report which stated

that the plight of the tenants is miserable due to the rack renting,

heavy renewal fees and inadequate compensation for improvement

made on the land. Logan suggested to rectify these defects in the

tenancy system and recommended for permanent occupancy

rights.69 On the basis of his recommendations, a bill was proposed

and was passed as the Malabar Compensation for Tenants

Improvement Act of 1887 and later it was modified in 1900. But

even these acts were not powerful enough to check the arbitrary

exercise of the power of eviction.

An Assessment of the Tenurial System in Early Kerala

The studies on the background of the land tenure systems in

Travancore, Cochin and the British Malabar show that the tenurial

rights on lands in this region varied with the passing of time and the

agrarian structure that evolved in this region during the pre-colonial

72

period was different from that during the colonial period. The jenmie

system of land ownership in the region was characterized by the

tremendous concentration of ownership rights of land. As a result of

both the population increase and the impact of western influence the

caste structure began to decline. The decline of caste structure had

its influence on the ownership patterns of land also. The traditional

land structure and land tenure patterns in the region point to the

direction that the private ownership rights of land were recognised.

During the early times the native states followed a policy of non

interference in the affairs of the jenmies and tenants. As a result of

this the cultivators were in a deplorable position. Land revenue was

collected from the land from the very early times. The coming of the

English East India Company made matters worse, as the rulers

began to impose more tax on land which they needed badly to satisfy

the demands of the English.

The native rulers of Travancore followed a policy of land

relations which was of a progressive nature. They tried to make an

amicable settlement between the jenmies and the tenants through

the various measures they undertook. The Proclamations were an

example to this. A major breakthrough in this context was their

policy of confirming the ownership rights of the tenant cultivator on

the land. Further, the rulers were progressive enough to see that the

tenants were not ill-treated by the jenmies. The impact of this

attitude of the monarchy could be traced to the later land regulations

73

in the state and among the democratic rulers in the later united

Kerala.

The State of Cochin also followed a similar policy like that of

Travancore. They made attempts to subdue the chiefs and

strengthen the state power, but not very severely as in Travancore.

The exorbitant demand of revenue by the British from Cochin rulers

had its impact on the agrarian sector. The condition of the

agricultural class of Cochin was worse than that of their

counterparts in Travancore due to the excessive collection of tax.

Supportive mechanisms for the effective implementation of the land

revenue reforms were absent in Cochin, although the Cochin rulers

were keen to prevent any form of unrest connected with the tenurial

system of the state.

The British Malabar followed a different system of land

relations, when compared with Travancore and Cochin. The tenurial

relation in the region was more complex than the other two nearby

regions. The Mysorian invasion of the region decisively influenced

the land relations here. The Sultans of Mysore followed the policy of

maximization of land revenue collection which was the main source

of their income. After the British annexation, they followed the policy

of maximization of revenue supported with measures for maximizing

production. Comprehensive land revenue assessments were made

by them. As part of this policy and also to fulfil their political

motives, the British followed a policy of showing undue importance

74

to the jenmies in the region. This policy gave birth to tenurial

protests in the region fanned by communal feelings. The tenurial

changes initiated and developed under the royal patronage had

profoundly influenced the socio-economic and cultural scenario of

the native state and in effect further paved the way for similar and

deeper tenurial legislations in the succeeding phase.

The overall impact of the changes that took place in the

tenurial systems in Travancore, Cochin and Malabar were different.

In the case of Travancore, there were peasant proprietors, Cochin

emerged into a tract of peasant proprietors–cum–absentee landlords

and as far as Malabar was concerned, an absolute landlordism. The

changes in the tenurial system in these regions had far reaching

effects on not only land relations but on the economic and social

change in the subsequent period. The Travancore system by all

means seems to be unique with more progressive vision of the rulers

related to land reforms. The scope of the present study therefore is

mainly concentrated in the land tenure systems in Travancore and

its impact over the region in the subsequent period.

75

Notes and References

1 Louise Onwerkerk., (ed.] Dick Kooliman, No Elephants for the

Maharaja, Social and Political Change in the Princely State of

Travancore 1921-1947, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1994,

p.28.

2 By the Treaty of Seringapatam (1792) Tippu Sultan formally

ceded Malabar to the British. This led to the establishment of

the British supremacy in Malabar. Seringapatam is also spelt as

Srirangapatnam. See, K.N.Panikkar, Against Lord and State,

Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar: 1836-1921, Oxford

University Press, Delhi, 1992, p.75.

3 Rajan Gurukkal and M. R. Raghava Varier., Cultural History of

Kerala, Vol.I, Dept. of Cultural Publications, Trivandrum, 1999,

p. 258.

4 Sreedhara Menon A., Cultural Heritage of Kerala, D.C. Books,

Kottayam, 2008, p. 236.

5 Ryot - One who owns land and pays tax directly to government

6 Kareem C. K., „The Agrarian Relations of Kerala,‟ in Journal of

Kerala Studies, Kerala University, Trivandrum, Vol. IV,1977,

p.583.

7 Rajan Gurukkal and M. R. Raghava Varier., op.cit., p.261.

8 Ibid.

76

9 Sircar lands are lands owned by the government while jenmom

lands are lands of the Brahmins in which they had absolute

rights.

10 Madhava Row T. Sir., Memo on Kanapattam Tenure, Directorate

of State Archives, Trivandrum, Cover File, Bundle No.44,

C.15128, 1867, p.25.

11 Oommen M.A., Land Reforms and Socio-Economic Changes in

Kerala, CLS Madras, 1971, pp.13-14.

12 Gopalakrishnan P.K., Kerlathinte Samskarika Charitram,(Mal.)

The State Institute of Languages, Trivandrum , 1974, p.421.

13 The term „Nambudiri‟ as applied to Malayalee - Brahmins is a

word of respect of office and dignity, dating its origin from the

great reformer and teacher of Kerala – Sri Sankaracharya of

Kalady; For more details see, K.N Chettur, “The Nambudiri

Brahmins of Kerala,” in Social Reforms in Nineteenth Century

India, ed. by Alok Ray, Cross Roads, Calcutta, 2005, p.77.

14 Rajabhogam - Royalty: A tax or rent calculated at 1/6 or 1/8 of

the Pattom.

15 Nagam Aiya V., The Travancore State Manuel, Vol. III, Gazetteers

Dept., Govt. of Kerala, 1999, p.317.

16 Kanappattom - A kind of tenure prevalent in Travancore.

17 Velu Pillai T.K., The Travancore State Manual, Trivandrum,

1940, p. 148.

77

18 Brahmaswom - belonging to Brahmins, Dewaswom - belonging

to temples.

19 Shangoony Menon P., A History of Travancore, Government of

Kerala, Trivandrum, 1983, p. xvii.

20 Nagam Aiya.V., op.cit., p.1.

21 Louise Onwerkerk, op.cit., p. 33.

22 Nagam Aiya V., op.cit., p. 2.

23 Pillamar and Madampimar were the local names for the

feudatory chiefs.

24 Sreedhara Menon., op.cit., p.2.

25 Other than dedicating the kingdom to the deity,

Sreepadmanabha (referred to earlier), many oottupura (dining

halls) were maintained from Sircar funds for feeding Brahmins.

During the newly instituted Murajapam and Bhadradeepam

festivals, Brahmins were given donations lavishly (see the

Madras State Directory, Cochin, 1934, No. VIII, p.3)

26 Gopalakrishnan P.K., op.cit., p.341.

27 Elamkulam P.N. Kunjan Pillai., Jenmie Sampradayam Keralathil

(Mal.), D.C. Books, Kottayam, 1965, p.85.

28 Panikkar K.M., A History of Kerala, 1498-1801 A.D., Annamalai

University, Annamalainagar, 1959, p.252.

29 Ganesh K. N., Keralathinte Innelekal (Mal.), Dept. of Cultural

Publications, Govt. of Kerala, Trivandrum,1990, p.95.

78

30 For the administrative convenience, Marthanda Varma divided

the state into taluks and put them under the revenue

jurisdiction of karyakkar. Veluthampi was the karyakkar of

Talakkulam, a place at present in Kanyakumary District of

Tamil Nadu.

31 Sobhanan B., Divan Veluthampi and the British, Trivandrum,

1978, pp. 52-57.

32 At Kundra, in Central Travancore, Veluthampi issued this

Proclamation on 11 January, 1809.

33 Velu Pillai T.K, op.cit., p.37-46.

34 Nagam Aiya V., op.cit., p.546.

35 Raj K. N., forward in T. C. Varghese, Agrarian Change and

Economic Consequences: Land Tenures in Kerala, 1850-1950,

Allied Publishers, Bombay, 1970, p.x.

36 Varghese T.C., op.cit., p. 44.

37 Velu Pillai T.K, op.cit., pp. 374.

38 Census of India, 1901, Travancore, Report, p.390.

39 Varghese T.C., op.ci.t, p. 47.

40 Royal Edict of 1829, cited in the Travancore Jenmie-Kudiyan

Committee Report of 1916, Trivandrum, p.1.

41 Varghese T.C., op.cit., p. 48.

42 Krishna Menon E., (compiled) The Cochin Dewaswom Manual,

Ernakulam, 1938, Introduction para 3.

79

43 Pandaravaka – belonging to Sircar.

44 Puravaka – land other than government sort.

45 Oommen T. K., From Mobilization to Institutionalization, The

Dynamics of Agrarian Movement in Twentieth Century Kerala,

Popular Prakasan, Bombay, 1985, p. 56.

46 Cited in the Report of the Agrarian Problem Enquiry Committee of

Cochin, Chapter, 2, p.50.

47 Mamamkam – According to tradition, it was a national festival

held once in twelve years on the banks of Bharathapuzha.

48 Padmanabha Menon K.P., History of Kerala, Trivandrum, Vol. 11,

p. 385.

49 Government of Madras, 1882, Vol. I. X-XII.

50 Radhakrishan P., Peasant Struggles, Land Reforms and Social

Change - Malabar, 1836-1983, Sage Publishers, New Delhi,

1989, p.18.

51 Major Walker, Report on the Land Tenure of Malabar, 1801, p.3.

52 Oommen M.A., op.cit., pp. 28-29.

53 Radhakrishanan P., op.cit., p.43.

54 Krishnan T.V., Logante Malabar Manual, (Mal.), Mathrubhumi

Publishers, Calicut, 1985, p.523.

55 Varghese T.C, op.cit., pp. 17-18.

80

56 In 1801, Malabar was transferred to the administrative

jurisdiction of the Madras Presidency from the Bombay

Presidency.

57 Panikkar K. N., Against Lord and State- Religion and Peasant

Uprisings in Malabar 1836-1921, Oxford, Delhi, 1992, pp.18-19.

58 Kurup K. K. N., William Logan: Malabarile Karshikabandangalil

Oru Patanam, (Mal.) State Institute of Languages, Trivandrum,

1981, p.11.

59 Farmer., „Report to the Governor of Bombay Presidency in 1793‟,

cited in Innes, C. A, Malabar District Gazette, Vol.1 p. 1, 289.

60 Kanam is a kind of land tenure under which the tenant holds

land by paying a fixed sum or grain in advance or acknowledges

the ownership of landlord; Kuzhikkanam is a lease of waste land

or land which could be improved in favour of a cultivator who

has to make improvements in the land.

61 Otti is a mortgage of land.

62 Muslims of Malabar were called Mopalah.

63 The estimate of two thirds is approximate, derived from the 1891

census figures which give 62 per cent as the agricultural

population of the district.

64 William Logan., Special Commissioner’s Report, Vol. 2, Appendix

I, Chapter VII, p. 21.

81

65 Sullivan., (Collector of Madras reported in 1841) Report on the

Province of Malabar and Canara, 1841.

66 Radhakrishnan P., op. cit., p.44.

67 Oommen M.A., op.cit., p.32.

68 Panikkar K.N., op.cit., pp. 94-97.

69 William Logan., op.cit., p.21.